Nephites! Yea Or Nay?

[Gray]

Why must the resurrection of Christ be literally true? You're OK with it being science fiction, then. OK, I guess I see where you're coming from.

And I guess I know now what a "Progressive Mormon" is.

 

That's not responsive. And is that really your view of scripture? Science fiction that's based on a true story? 

[Gray]

Actually it has everything to do with the existence/nonexistence of ancient Hebrews. Founding myths establish a people as distinct from others. Would the absence of evidence for the existence of ancient Troy establish the Greek Gods?

 

Whether or not the stories are silly is a separate question to whether or not they are true. Do you think they're silly?

[Gray]

Depends on what you mean by "no historical basis."  My own take on the matter finds considerable basis in actual history for the biblical Exodus:   “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

 

Thanks, I will read this at some point today and get back to you (just don't get your hopes up and expect an intelligent response )

[thesometimesaint]

Whether or not the stories are silly is a separate question to whether or not they are true. Do you think they're silly?

 

Not silly in the sense of irrational, but silly in the sense of farce. IE; A funny play or movie about ridiculous situations and events.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

Lack of belief in that very Christian teaching has led in recent times to escalating levels of violence by otherwise "civilized" peoples.  See Tobin Siebers, Mirror of Medusa (1983), and Girard, Violence and the Sacred (1977).

Really? What do mean by "recent times"? "Escalating levels of violence"? In which countries, in which societies? Define "civilized peoples". Your generalizations are so broad and sweeping to make them false from the outstart.

If you read Girard, he states that the perpetrators of violence always think they're only responding to the violence of others. None take the responsibility of starting violent actions. "Christian" nations are hardly free of committing violence as a society, while all the time proclaiming their loyalty to Christian values. It's always the "other guy" who started it.

[Stargazer]

That's not responsive. And is that really your view of scripture? Science fiction that's based on a true story?  <--- That's what I saying about your apparent position, not mine, that you were OK with the literal resurrection of Christ being science fiction, i.e. an event that did not happen.

 

Gray, I don't know how to respond to what you wrote.  When I indicated that Christ's resurrection (among certain other things) had to be literally true, you asked "Why must these be literally true?"  The implication was that you didn't think it was important at all. 

 

If this assessment is correct, it perplexes me.  Please clarify, if you don't mind.

[Robert F. Smith]

Really? What do mean by "recent times"? "Escalating levels of violence"? In which countries, in which societies? Define "civilized peoples". Your generalizations are so broad and sweeping to make them false from the outstart.

If you read Girard, he states that the perpetrators of violence always think they're only responding to the violence of others. None take the responsibility of starting violent actions. "Christian" nations are hardly free of committing violence as a society, while all the time proclaiming their loyalty to Christian values. It's always the "other guy" who started it.

In my lifetime, we have seen the greatest levels of violence ever experienced on planet Earth, and from the outwardly and supposedly most civilized peoples.  Do you need a history lesson?

 

There was a time when the first Christian conversions took place in Scandinavia, and lastly in Iceland.  Before those conversions brought with them a consciousness of the blood vengeance scapegoat mechanism, killing was a normal mode of setting things right.  Once repentance and forgiveness came into play, the old Viking attitude soon disappeared.  Now that Christianity is rapidly disappearing from Western civilization, pagan scapegoating will make a comeback.  Already has.

[tagriffy]

Has anyone figured out what is so special about those Isaiah chapters Nephi quoted?  I've yet to figure it out.  Nephi didn't really clarify.  Modern prophets and apostles don't appear to understand why, either.

 

I haven't been able to make sense of it either, whether I'm trying to do it from either environmentalist or historicist perspectives. I assume it serves a function beyond just filling space. The only possibility I've been able to think that makes sense is that it has something to do with the differences to the KJV Isaiah, but the differences don't seem very significant in most cases on the micro level and they don't seem to add up to much on the macro level either.

[tagriffy]

In my lifetime, we have seen the greatest levels of violence ever experienced on planet Earth, and from the outwardly and supposedly most civilized peoples.  Do you need a history lesson?

 

 

Actually, comparatively speaking we are living in an era where violence has been in decline for thousands of years. See http://www.factsandopinions.com/galleries/expert-witness/the-decline-in-global-violence/. It only seems like we've seen the greatest levels of violence because information spreads much more quickly than it ever has. That and the mentality in journalism that if it bleeds it leads.

[Five Solas]

Actually, comparatively speaking we are living in an era where violence has been in decline for thousands of years. See http://www.factsandopinions.com/galleries/expert-witness/the-decline-in-global-violence/. It only seems like we've seen the greatest levels of violence because information spreads much more quickly than it ever has. That and the mentality in journalism that if it bleeds it leads.

Agree.  This book was a bit of an eye-opener a few years back - War before Civilization

[carbon dioxide]

I said the Nephites literally existed but their existence is immaterial to the restored gospel.   The restoration mainly keys on the restoration of the priesthood.  God could have restored the priesthood and other things without the Book of Mormon.  However the restoration and the Church works better with the Book of Mormon by teaching us clear points of the gospel that we do not find in the Bible.  However even those clear points could have been revealed by latter day revelation in the D&C. 

 

If the Nephites did not exist, then Moroni himself could not exist as he is part of them.  And if one believes Moroni existed but the Nephites themselves did not exist is to call Moroni a liar since he pretty clearly takes their existence to be true.

Edited June 19, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually, comparatively speaking we are living in an era where violence has been in decline for thousands of years. See http://www.factsandopinions.com/galleries/expert-witness/the-decline-in-global-violence/. It only seems like we've seen the greatest levels of violence because information spreads much more quickly than it ever has. That and the mentality in journalism that if it bleeds it leads.

You must be very young and very unfamiliar with history.  Also, you seem to be a believer in the false doctrine of progress.

 

Part of our modern problem with extreme violence may be our improved technical ability to kill, from small arms to weapons of mass destruction, although the high rate (speed and numbers) of killing in Rwanda during the Clinton administration was not high tech at all.  It was basically genocide by machete, and was far more efficient that the Nazi killing machine inaugurated by Hitler.  However, Hitler established an industrial killing machine designed to rid the world of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other subhumans.  He managed to kill 11 million people by that means, but the total deaths in World War II were around 50 million.  This does not even count the millions killed by Stalin pre-W W II (the kulaks for example), nor does that figure in the even more enormous number of deaths caused by Mao Tse Tung in China.  We have never had, in the history of planet Earth greater levels of violence and killing than in the 20th century, without even counting the genocide of Armenians by the Turks, the killing frenzy of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, etc.  The killing continues apace in the 21st century.  See  http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html .  What is particularly disturbing is the fact that the most culturally advanced country in the world, Germany, was also the most bestial.  Secular education and secular culture do not actually prevent violence, even though we frequently hear that lie from atheists.

 

With all that, please be aware that we now have more slavery worldwide than at any time in history.

[tagriffy]

You must be very young and very unfamiliar with history.  Also, you seem to be a believer in the false doctrine of progress.

 

I am 43 years old; how old or young that is I leave for you to decide. While I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert, I think I can say I know history well enough. And while I do believe progress in general has been and will continue to be made, I'm not simply looking at the world with rose-tinted glasses. I will emend my previous statement to read, Actually, comparatively speaking we may well be living in an era where violence has been in decline for thousands of years. Stating it as an absolute did go overboard.

 

Nevertheless, had you read the article I linked, you would have noted it was not denying the points you made. The article is not talking about sheer numbers, but compared to the relative size of the population over a span of some 10,000 years. In those terms, it is certainly plausible the world has been getting less violent.

[carbon dioxide]

 

Perhaps your definition of extensive is different than mine. As you undoubtedly know, long passages of KJV Isaiah and Matthew are quoted word-for-word. There are also quotations from Micah and Malachi, the Gospel of John, Hebrews, Revelation, etc. As Philip Barlow has observed, "the Book of Mormon narrative bulges with biblical expressions. More than fifty thousand phrases of three or more words, excluding definite and indefinite articles, are common to the [KJV] Bible and the Book of Mormon. . . . iblical phases constitute the vocabulary building blocks of much of the Book of Mormon" (Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991], 27–28).

Pretty impressive actually when one considers from the witnesses of the translation process that Joseph did not have a Bible and his face was buried in a hat.  I challenge anyone to duplicate that.  Memorize entire chapters of the Bible, then dictate them to a scribe with your face planted in a hat and with no do overs or read backs.  

Edited June 20, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Robert F. Smith]

I am 43 years old; how old or young that is I leave for you to decide. While I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert, I think I can say I know history well enough. And while I do believe progress in general has been and will continue to be made, I'm not simply looking at the world with rose-tinted glasses. I will emend my previous statement to read, Actually, comparatively speaking we may well be living in an era where violence has been in decline for thousands of years. Stating it as an absolute did go overboard.

 

Nevertheless, had you read the article I linked, you would have noted it was not denying the points you made. The article is not talking about sheer numbers, but compared to the relative size of the population over a span of some 10,000 years. In those terms, it is certainly plausible the world has been getting less violent.

Actually, I did read that article, which is why I added the sentence about slavery -- the article you cited seemed to suggest that the slavery problem was behind us.  Believers in the doctrine of progress typically ignore the hard facts.  See Robert Nisbet, History of the Idea of Progress, 2nd ed. (Transaction Publ., 1994).

 

I was born before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and have been in combat, so I may have a deeper sense of perspective that some others you discuss this with.

[canard78]

Pretty impressive actually when one considers from the witnesses of the translation process that Joseph did not have a Bible and his face was buried in a hat. I challenge anyone to duplicate that. Memorize entire chapters of the Bible, then dictate them to a scribe with your face planted in a hat and with no do overs or read backs.

Joseph Smith, in 1823, claims to have known extensive passages of the Bible so well that he could identify chapter and verse of what angel Moroni quoted. He was so familiar with it that he could identify minor differences in the version that Moroni dictated vs the version in his bible.

How much more could he have memorised when he dictated the Bible 6 years later?

36 After telling me these things, he commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus:

37 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

38 And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

39 He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

40 In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when “they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,” but soon would come.

41 He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be. And he further stated that the fulness of the Gentiles was soon to come in. He quoted many other passages of scripture, and offered many explanations which cannot be mentioned here.

Edited June 20, 2015 by canard78

[Calm]

Never mind, I just realized you were discussing the implications of his comments you referred to above. 

Edited June 20, 2015 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

You must be very young and very unfamiliar with history.  Also, you seem to be a believer in the false doctrine of progress.

 

Part of our modern problem with extreme violence may be our improved technical ability to kill, from small arms to weapons of mass destruction, although the high rate (speed and numbers) of killing in Rwanda during the Clinton administration was not high tech at all.  It was basically genocide by machete, and was far more efficient that the Nazi killing machine inaugurated by Hitler.  However, Hitler established an industrial killing machine designed to rid the world of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other subhumans.  He managed to kill 11 million people by that means, but the total deaths in World War II were around 50 million.  This does not even count the millions killed by Stalin pre-W W II (the kulaks for example), nor does that figure in the even more enormous number of deaths caused by Mao Tse Tung in China.  We have never had, in the history of planet Earth greater levels of violence and killing than in the 20th century, without even counting the genocide of Armenians by the Turks, the killing frenzy of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, etc.  The killing continues apace in the 21st century.  See  http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html .  What is particularly disturbing is the fact that the most culturally advanced country in the world, Germany, was also the most bestial.  Secular education and secular culture do not actually prevent violence, even though we frequently hear that lie from atheists.

 

With all that, please be aware that we now have more slavery worldwide than at any time in history.

 

Secular just means the opposite of sacred. Moreover it isn't a good idea to compare one man's best traits with another man's worst traits. An Atheist can be just a moral as a Sectarian.

[ed2276]

For all I know, you're descended from him, too, and we're cousins! 

 

 And co-emperors! 

[Robert F. Smith]

Secular just means the opposite of sacred. Moreover it isn't a good idea to compare one man's best traits with another man's worst traits. An Atheist can be just a moral as a Sectarian.

It is an element of strong faith in militant atheism that secular education would bring peace and understanding, and that religion is the true source of violence and ignorance.  In our time, it has been precisely the most aggressive atheists (as organized governments) who have killed the most people and caused the most suffering.  That an individual atheist somewhere (who was raised in a religious home) may be highly moral is not to the point at all.  Some atheists have been heroic and have my admiration.  Bertrand Russell, for example, was a wonderful man, and an atheist, who stood for many praiseworthy objectives.  TV personality, Bill Maher, has taken many courageous stands, but his potty mouth shows his atheism to be puerile and underdeveloped, even shameful.  He is still a silly frat boy.

[mfbukowski]

It is an element of strong faith in militant atheism that secular education would bring peace and understanding, and that religion is the true source of violence and ignorance.  In our time, it has been precisely the most aggressive atheists (as organized governments) who have killed the most people and caused the most suffering.  That an individual atheist somewhere (who was raised in a religious home) may be highly moral is not to the point at all.  Some atheists have been heroic and have my admiration.  Bertrand Russell, for example, was a wonderful man, and an atheist, who stood for many praiseworthy objectives.  TV personality, Bill Maher, has taken many courageous stands, but his potty mouth shows his atheism to be puerile and underdeveloped, even shameful.  He is still a silly frat boy.

Not to mention a fundamentalist.

 

He is a scientific literalist without any understanding of the philosophy of science or even the ideas of, say, Kuhn or the Pragmatists.

[thesometimesaint]

It is an element of strong faith in militant atheism that secular education would bring peace and understanding, and that religion is the true source of violence and ignorance.  In our time, it has been precisely the most aggressive atheists (as organized governments) who have killed the most people and caused the most suffering.  That an individual atheist somewhere (who was raised in a religious home) may be highly moral is not to the point at all.  Some atheists have been heroic and have my admiration.  Bertrand Russell, for example, was a wonderful man, and an atheist, who stood for many praiseworthy objectives.  TV personality, Bill Maher, has taken many courageous stands, but his potty mouth shows his atheism to be puerile and underdeveloped, even shameful.  He is still a silly frat boy.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Atheism of Mr. Maher. I think it is entirely possible to disagree and still not become disagreeable. Take what is good and discard the rest.

[Gray]

Thanks, I will read this at some point today and get back to you (just don't get your hopes up and expect an intelligent response )

 

I will admit to only having skimmed the first few pages, and am unlikely to have much time for any sustained reading over the next few days.

 

Is Josephus really a good source for the exodus? He was not after all a modern historian, would he have relevant sources to draw upon? I believe the common objections to a historical Moses/Exodus is complete dearth of direct evidence, combined with archaeological evidence that suggests Israelites seem to have been an offshoot of the native Canaanites rather than their conquerors. 

 

I apologize in advance - you may cover all of this in your article. 

[Gray]

Gray, I don't know how to respond to what you wrote.  When I indicated that Christ's resurrection (among certain other things) had to be literally true, you asked "Why must these be literally true?"  The implication was that you didn't think it was important at all. 

 

If this assessment is correct, it perplexes me.  Please clarify, if you don't mind.

 

Well, what would change in your relationship with God if the resurrection were not a literal occurrence? If it were symbolic of something else, would you stop believing in God? After all, it's not the event itself that affects you in there here and now - it's the meaning you draw from the story. 

 

In any case, the original context was ALL the miracles attributed to Jesus. Why MUST all of them have really happened? That's a lot of weight to put in a genre (scripture) not noted for producing faithful retelling of actual events (that has never been the point of scripture). Why is any of that important? What does the story of loaves and fishes mean to you if it's only a literal event? After all, neither the loaves nor the fishes are available for you to eat. 

[ERayR]

Well, what would change in your relationship with God if the resurrection were not a literal occurrence? If it were symbolic of something else, would you stop believing in God? After all, it's not the event itself that affects you in there here and now - it's the meaning you draw from the story. 

 

In any case, the original context was ALL the miracles attributed to Jesus. Why MUST all of them have really happened? That's a lot of weight to put in a genre (scripture) not noted for producing faithful retelling of actual events (that has never been the point of scripture). Why is any of that important? What does the story of loaves and fishes mean to you if it's only a literal event? After all, neither the loaves nor the fishes are available for you to eat. 

 

I see the flaw in your reasoning.  If it didn't happen it there is no way it could affect you at any time.  It would be just a fairy tale story.